logo
#

Latest news with #AmericanBarAssociation

Parents seeking religious exemptions to school vaccines win reprieve in a West Virginia county
Parents seeking religious exemptions to school vaccines win reprieve in a West Virginia county

Boston Globe

time6 days ago

  • Health
  • Boston Globe

Parents seeking religious exemptions to school vaccines win reprieve in a West Virginia county

Froble's ruling came in a lawsuit that was filed June 24. The injunction was limited to the three children of the plaintiffs who sued the state and local departments of education, and has no impact statewide. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Morrisey, who served as West Virginia's attorney general from 2013 until he was sworn in as governor in January, said he believes the religious exemptions to vaccinations should already be permitted under a 2023 law passed by the Legislature called the Equal Protection for Religion Act. Advertisement 'Today's ruling is another legal victory in the fight for religious freedom,' Morrisey said in a statement. 'No family should be forced to choose between their faith and their children's education, which is exactly what the unelected bureaucrats on the State Board of Education are attempting to force West Virginians to do.' The board said in a statement that it was disappointed by the ruling and that its members 'will decide next steps in the near future.' Advertisement The original lawsuit doesn't explain what specific religion the families follow. It was filed on behalf of parent Miranda Guzman, who identifies as a Christian and said that altering her child's natural immune system through required vaccinations 'would demonstrate a lack of faith in God' and 'disobey the Holy Spirit's leading.' The suit was later amended to add two other parents. Most religious denominations and groups support medical vaccinations, according to the American Bar Association. Vaccination mandates for public schools are seen as a way of to prevent the spread of once-common childhood diseases such as measles, mumps, whooping cough, chickenpox and polio. But due in part to vaccine hesitancy, some preventable and deadly diseases are on the rise. For example, the U.S. is having its worst year for measles spread in more than three decades. Medical experts have long heralded West Virginia's school vaccination policy as one of the most protective in the country for children. State law requires children to receive vaccines for chickenpox, hepatitis B, measles, meningitis, mumps, diphtheria, polio, rubella, tetanus and whooping cough before starting school. Several states grant medical exemptions from school vaccinations. At least 30 states have religious freedom laws modeled after the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, signed in 1993 by then-President Bill Clinton. It allows federal regulations that interfere with religious beliefs to be challenged. On Wednesday, a Kanawha County judge dismissed a separate lawsuit against Morrisey's executive order because it didn't give the required 30 days' notice prior to being filed. That lawsuit, filed on behalf of two Cabell County parents, will be allowed to be refiled. It alleged that only the Legislature, not the governor, has the authority to make such decisions. Advertisement During their regular session that ended in April, lawmakers failed to pass legislation that was introduced to allow religious exemptions for school vaccine mandates.

Can Ketanji Brown Jackson save the Supreme Court from itself?
Can Ketanji Brown Jackson save the Supreme Court from itself?

The Hill

time16-07-2025

  • Politics
  • The Hill

Can Ketanji Brown Jackson save the Supreme Court from itself?

The supremely partisan Supreme Court is deeply divided. The justices pretend that their divisions are intellectual, not personal, but we know that their deep ideological divisions can often disguise personal animus. In 1916, President Woodrow Wilson appointed Louis D. Brandeis to the Supreme Court, making him the first Jewish justice. Brandeis had no prior judicial experience but was known as the 'people's lawyer' for his championing of individual liberties — a right to privacy, free speech and social justice. The Economist once called him 'a Robin Hood of the law.' Leading lawyers and elected officials opposed the Brandeis nomination. The American Bar Association and such luminaries as former President William Howard Taft, Elihu Root and Henry Cabot Lodge lined up against him. Brandeis ascended to the conservative Supreme Court after a four-month Senate confirmation hearing — the first time such a hearing was held. After he took the bench, his colleague, Justice James McReynolds of Tennessee, a hardened antisemite, would turn his back and refuse to speak with Brandeis as he entered the conference room. Brandeis needed time to find his place. 'So extraordinary an intellect as Brandeis said it took him four or five years to feel that he understood the jurisprudential problems of the court,' Justice Felix Frankfurter later wrote of him. Brandeis often crafted trenchant dissenting opinions, some of which later became the basis for landmark judgments of the court's majority. In many of his famous dissents, he was joined by the iconic Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. His opinions were some of the greatest legal defenses of free speech and the right to privacy ever written. Unlike Brandeis, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, appointed by Biden in 2022, has not waited 'four or five years' to become 'a Robin Hood of the law.' But the parallels with Brandeis are striking. Jackson is the first Black woman to serve on the court and, like Brandeis, she has become the great dissenter, sometimes siding with Justices Sonia Sotomayor or Elena Kagan and sometimes standing alone. Jackson has erupted volcanically, writing eloquently to speak her heart and mind in advocacy for human rights or against the steady accretion of executive power. And she has not been shy about accusing her right-wing colleagues of enabling President Trump as he slip-slides the country towards a dangerous autocracy. Also, like Brandeis, she has been the target of personal attacks coming from conservatives on and off the bench. On the Supreme Court's 'shadow docket,' where Trump this term won 19 of the 21 cases the court considered, Jackson dissented. In strong language, she criticized the majority opinion in the birthright citizenship case, which sharply limited the power of district court judges to block presidential orders nationwide, even if they are flagrantly unconstitutional. She called it 'an existential threat to the rule of law' that created 'a zone of lawlessness within which the executive has the prerogative to take or leave the law as it wishes.' Her slashing critiques have provoked her colleagues' rancor, culminating in gratuitous rebuke from Justice Amy Coney Barrett, which did not lack dismissiveness or condescension. Barrett scolded Jackson as though she were an eight-year-old schoolgirl in a classroom for abandoning her 'oath to follow the law.' 'Justice Jackson would do well to heed her own admonition,' she chided. ''Everyone from the president on down is bound by law.' That goes for judges too.' Justice Barrett added: 'Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.' And: 'We will not dwell on Justice Jackson's argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries' worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself.' In the staid world of the federal judiciary, it doesn't get any closer or more personal than this. Trump's supporters were delighted by Barrett's criticism of Jackson. 'Sometimes feeling the heat helps people see the light,' Mike Davis, a right-wing legal activist allied with the Trump administration, told NBC News. Duke law professor Marin K. Levy said Jackson 'is trying to raise the alarm. Whether she is writing for the public or a future court, she is making a larger point about what she sees as not just the errors of the majority's position but the dangers of it as well.' Perhaps one day Jackson's views, like those of Brandeis, will become the law. Jackson has also been critical of the Supreme Court's use of the shadow docket — an increasingly expedient procedural device for the justices to deliver bargain-basement endorsements of Trump's agenda without explanation or legal rhyme or reason. 'This fly-by-night approach to the work of the Supreme Court is not only misguided,' Jackson wrote. 'It is also dangerous.' Last week, the court handed down a significant (if temporary) decision allowing Trump to move forward with firing thousands of federal workers. Jackson registered a solo dissent, writing, 'In my view, this decision is not only truly unfortunate but also hubristic and senseless.' What Jackson criticizes has consequences in the real world. The court's repeated interventions in favor of Trump enable obvious illegality by the executive branch for a while, or possibly forever, as Trump continues to game the system. That it is only temporary is no answer. Over one million individuals may be losing their previous immigration status; countless migrants are being removed to third countries; federal employees are being fired wholesale, without congressional approval; statutorily created agencies are being downsized into insignificance; grants for scientific research have been throttled. And just wait for what will happen to law firms and universities. Jackson may not be 'so extraordinary an intellect as Brandeis,' but she is surely as principled. And like Brandeis, she is reviled on the right as Cassius was reviled by Julius Caesar: 'He thinks too much; such men are dangerous.' Conversations with Jim Zirin.

This Century-Old Practice Could Break Political Polarization and Empower the Center
This Century-Old Practice Could Break Political Polarization and Empower the Center

Newsweek

time08-07-2025

  • Politics
  • Newsweek

This Century-Old Practice Could Break Political Polarization and Empower the Center

Two years ago, the American Bar Association (ABA) formed a Task Force for American Democracy, seeking to bolster voter confidence in the integrity of our elections, to reinforce the importance of the rule of law, and to suggest actionable ways to improve and strengthen our democratic system. We are privileged to be members of the ABA's task force. It is chaired by two distinguished jurists—Judge J. Michael Luttig and Jeh Charles Johnson—and includes a stellar cross-partisan array of lawyers, scholars, and community leaders. We held listening forums around the country and solicited expert advice on the key issues facing our democracy, including trust in elections, election worker safety, improving public dialogue, and reducing political polarization. It is clear that the ABA's concerns are warranted. According to Gallup, public satisfaction with "how democracy is working in this country" hit an all-time low in early 2025. Supermajorities regularly tell pollsters that they want major changes in the political system. Many appear open to giving up on the rule of law and letting a strongman run the country. Despite these worrisome signs, we remain optimistic about the democratic prospect in America. Democracy in America is not doomed. The ABA Task Force's forthcoming final report will offer many excellent suggestions on steps to bolster it. Among the recommendations under consideration, there is one that we especially wish to shine a light on: multi-party nomination, or "fusion" voting. Here's how it works. Imagine a new political party of "politically homeless" centrists. Call it the Common Sense Party—a combination of non-MAGA Republicans unhappy with the direction of their party, moderate-to-conservative Democrats not overly thrilled with their traditional political home, and unaffiliated voters who have been turned off by all the grandstanding and bickering. The Common Sense Party leadership wants to elevate a few key concerns: the rule of law, principled bargaining and compromise, and civility in public life. One thing it doesn't want to do is nominate traditional stand-alone third-party candidates. Common Sense folk aren't interested in wasting their votes or unintentionally being "spoilers." Instead, they interview the two major party candidates and nominate the one able and willing to make a credible, public commitment to the Common Sense Party's program (and its voters). NEW YORK, NEW YORK - JUNE 17: People vote in the New York Primary elections at the Brooklyn Museum on June 17, 2025 in the Prospect Heights neighborhood of the Brooklyn borough in New York... NEW YORK, NEW YORK - JUNE 17: People vote in the New York Primary elections at the Brooklyn Museum on June 17, 2025 in the Prospect Heights neighborhood of the Brooklyn borough in New York City. More Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images That candidate would have two different party nominations, and thus appear on the ballot under two separate party labels: one major and one minor. On election night the candidate's votes are tallied separately by party and then added together to produce the final outcome. Hard to believe, but this idea is only legal in two states today. A citizen who likes what the Common Sense party stands for might well be persuaded to vote for a candidate under the Common Sense label because doing so packs a punch—it demonstrates not just who you support but why. A vote under the Common Sense label would signal support for a different kind of governance, for a more civil society. Sometimes, the votes on the fusion party line will make the difference in who wins, other times it won't. Either way the party is playing a constructive role. Again, there's no wasted vote and no spoiling when you vote for a fusion party. For nearly a century, fusion was legal and common in every state. It allowed new ideas, new leaders, and new parties to emerge. Abolitionists, farmers, emancipated Blacks, mechanics, prohibitionists, and populists all used fusion voting during the 19th century to make sure that their voices were heard by their fellow citizens as well as the leaders of this vast, diverse nation. But politics has changed, and not for the better. The vitality and flexibility of a multi-party system has been replaced by the brittleness and anger of a hyper-partisan, polarized two-party "doom loop." Until the 1990s, our two-party system was much less polarized and much more local. There were conservatives, moderates, and liberals in the Republican and Democratic parties, which facilitated cross-partisan cooperation and deal-making. Today, politics is deeply tribal and fully national, and it is very rare for a member of Congress to cross party lines. This hyper-polarization is not just a Congressional problem; it afflicts most state legislatures too. Today the incentives flow towards conflict rather than collaboration, stymying effective governance and making more Americans question whether democracy is working. Unfortunately, the more people get turned off by the choices served up by our two-party system, the more they may find strongmen and demagogues appealing. Ending the ban on fusion voting would enable people in the political center to build their own political home and to pull the other parties away from their extremes. In New York City, for example, centrist candidate Mike Bloomberg was able to get elected mayor in part because the Independence Party allowed voters a way to back him that did not rely on the two-party framework. We are heartened that the ABA Task Force's final report may encourage the states to reconsider the bans on fusion voting passed by the major parties a century ago. As we write, there is litigation underway in New Jersey, Kansas, and Wisconsin to have these bans declared unconstitutional under their respective state constitutions. The plaintiffs are the New Jersey Moderate, United Kansas, and United Wisconsin parties. Citizens and leaders who cherish self-government and the rule of law should welcome the forthcoming recommendations from the ABA Task Force. It's not too late to restore confidence in our democracy. William Kristol is editor at large at The Bulwark. Tom Rogers is executive chairman of Claigrid, Inc. (the cloud AI grid company), an editor-at-large for Newsweek and the founder of CNBC. Both are members of the American Bar Association Task Force For Democracy. The views expressed in this article are the writers' own.

It's illegal in most states for private equity to buy a law firm. Lawyers have figured out a workaround.
It's illegal in most states for private equity to buy a law firm. Lawyers have figured out a workaround.

Yahoo

time06-07-2025

  • Business
  • Yahoo

It's illegal in most states for private equity to buy a law firm. Lawyers have figured out a workaround.

Legal ethics rules generally don't allow non-lawyers to own law firms. MSOs are a workaround to allow nonlawyers, including private equity firms, to effectively invest. Law firm owners can use the investors to scale, as well as for succession planning. Real estate, airlines, fashion. It might seem like private equity has climbed the mountain of the American economy, declaring everywhere the light touches as part of its kingdom. But one corner remains in the shadowlands: Law firms. Nearly every state has adopted a professional ethics rule from the American Bar Association forbidding lawyers from working for nonlawyer-owned firms. Lawyers, of course, have figured out a way around it. The loophole, known as a "managed services organization" — or MSO — allows non-lawyers to effectively own part of law firms through a second corporate entity. Business Insider spoke to two attorneys who advise law firms on the arrangement, which they said is becoming increasingly common. In June, Puerto Rico's high court allowed non-lawyer investment in law firms in order to spur economic development in the territory. Arizona, the only state that has done away with the ABA rule, in 2020, now has over 100 law firms that are open to outside investors, according to a recent Stanford Law School study. Large companies like KPMG and Rocket Lawyer now own law firms in the state outright. The MSO model, which isn't limited to only Arizona, could appeal to law firm owners who want to retire or who don't want to hand their firms over to a law partner. "We're in the midst of the largest rolling retirement of lawyers in history," said Lucian Pera, a legal ethics attorney at Adams & Reese who advises lawyers and businesses about setting up MSOs. "The baby boomers are getting old and retiring. And that's a real opportunity for some people." Using an MSO can give private equity firms — or other kinds of companies — a chance to effectively buy a slice of legal practices. And it gives lawyers the chance to sell stakes of their companies for cold, hard cash. It could also offer the chance to partner with a deep-pocketed company that could boost the firm and help scale it to new heights. Traditionally, law firms have operated as partnerships among attorneys, where equity partners own shares in the firm and help manage it. That's partly because of ethics rules designed to maintain attorney independence, such as ABA Model Rule 5.4(d), which largely prevents nonlawyers from owning law firms or from having the right to control the professional judgment of a lawyer. The ABA's rules have made law practices distinct from many other white-collar professions, like finance or consulting, which may have robust ethical rules and norms but don't impose such stringent limits on ownership. There are plenty of publicly traded banks and consulting firms, but no publicly traded law firms. As a workaround, the law firms can set themselves up as two corporate entities, Pera said. One is the law firm itself, composed exclusively of lawyers and owned only by lawyers. The second is the service organization, which can be owned by anyone and acts as a vendor for the law firm. It is essentially the back office, taking care of all non-lawyer tasks, including marketing, accounting, human resources, real estate leases, and employing paralegals. The two corporate entities enter into a long-term contract. Under this MSO arrangement, non-lawyers can invest in the service corporation, though not the law firm itself. Presto! You have an ethically independent group of lawyers who are exclusively working with a company that can sell shares, Pera says. According to Pera, no state bars have issued ethics opinions that expressly bless the MSO model, but no court or regulator has found a problem with it, either. "The pieces fit well, and there's no regulatory approval required for a law firm to do it, just like there's no regulatory approval required for a law firm to take out a bank loan," Pera said. A spokesperson for the American Bar Association said its Center for Professional Responsibility doesn't have any ethics opinions on non-lawyers investing in MSOs. "Lawyers are not subject to the ABA Model Rules," the spokesperson said. "Instead, they are regulated by the state supreme courts in which they are licensed." Tom Lenfestey is the founder and CEO of The Law Market Exchange, a sort of Craigslist for law firms. He says private equity companies are typically interested in consumer-driven firms, like personal injury. Investors might be able to introduce new efficiencies into those firms and get a steady stream of revenue in a larger portfolio, said Lenfestey, who also advises on law firm mergers and acquisitions. Private equity companies might be warier of investing in Big Law firms, which typically service corporations and have fewer but bigger clients, he said. Lawyers could always jump ship and take clients with them, but consumer law firms tend to do steadier business, he said. "Personal injury is brand-marketed — it's the billboards, it's the TV, it's the digital marketing," Lenfestey told Business Insider. "It's not attorney relationship-based." Because law firms aren't required to disclose their use of service organizations, it's difficult to know how widespread the practice is. Both Pera and Lenfestey declined to list the firms they've worked with using the structure, citing confidentiality obligations to their clients, but said it's becoming more common. Pera said he knows of one firm that used the structure as far back as 2006. In more recent years, more law firms and investors have become interested in using MSOs, Pera and Lenfestey said. "There are many more that are in process right now, and some of them are quite large," Pera said. "There's a fairly large insurance defense firm in this country that's looking at doing this. There's a fairly large AmLaw-ranked law firm that's looking at this. So there's a non-trivial number of these that are going on." Lawyers who have built up their practices, and who want to cash out, can do so by effectively selling part of their firm to someone else to manage. They can also help firms scale. Selling shares of an MSO could help finance lead generation or advertising. Catalex Network, which launched earlier this year, is using the MSO model to invest in law firms with a longer time horizon. While a private equity firm might want to stick with a law firm for a few years before selling its stake, Catalex Network says it aims to form long-term partnerships with law firms by helping them establish MSOs, buying substantial stakes in them, combining their back-offices, and giving the firms the resources to compete with Big Law. Catalex Network offers bread-and-butter services like IT, payroll, compliance management, and accounting. But also services that are more specific to the legal industry, like recruiting and sophisticated enterprise software that would be cost-prohibitive for smaller firms. "I've seen kind of what big law resources are and I've seen what small law resources are," said Jeffrey Goldenhersh, a Catalex Network founding partner, who previously worked at the Big Law firm Skadden Arps before moving to a boutique firm. For Catalex Network, the MSO structure offers a way for the company to grow with law firms. The American Bar Association's rules meant to preserve attorney independence, such as limits on fee-sharing with non-lawyers, are a non-issue. And while Catalex Network handles the back office, the lawyers can do less managing and more lawyering, Goldenhersh says. "There's a real consolidation going on at the top end of the legal market and some of these smaller, midsize, boutique-type firms are getting a little bit left behind," Jesse Hamilton, another Catalex founding partner, told BI. "So we're trying to help them catch up and be able to step into the ring with some of the larger firms that have consolidated, have the best technology, the best AI, the best back office staff, and have them be able to compete and stay relevant in the industry." Read the original article on Business Insider

It's illegal in most states for private equity to buy a law firm. Lawyers have figured out a workaround.
It's illegal in most states for private equity to buy a law firm. Lawyers have figured out a workaround.

Business Insider

time06-07-2025

  • Business
  • Business Insider

It's illegal in most states for private equity to buy a law firm. Lawyers have figured out a workaround.

Real estate, airlines, fashion. It might seem like private equity has climbed the mountain of the American economy, declaring everywhere the light touches as part of its kingdom. But one corner remains in the shadowlands: Law firms. Nearly every state has adopted a professional ethics rule from the American Bar Association forbidding lawyers from working for nonlawyer-owned firms. Lawyers, of course, have figured out a way around it. The loophole, known as a "managed services organization" — or MSO — allows non-lawyers to effectively own part of law firms through a second corporate entity. Business Insider spoke to two attorneys who advise law firms on the arrangement, which they said is becoming increasingly common. In June, Puerto Rico's high court allowed non-lawyer investment in law firms in order to spur economic development in the territory. Arizona, the only state that has done away with the ABA rule, in 2020, now has over 100 law firms that are open to outside investors, according to a recent Stanford Law School study. Large companies like KPMG and Rocket Lawyer now own law firms in the state outright. The MSO model, which isn't limited to only Arizona, could appeal to law firm owners who want to retire or who don't want to hand their firms over to a law partner. "We're in the midst of the largest rolling retirement of lawyers in history," said Lucian Pera, a legal ethics attorney at Adams & Reese who advises lawyers and businesses about setting up MSOs. "The baby boomers are getting old and retiring. And that's a real opportunity for some people." Using an MSO can give private equity firms — or other kinds of companies — a chance to effectively buy a slice of legal practices. And it gives lawyers the chance to sell stakes of their companies for cold, hard cash. It could also offer the chance to partner with a deep-pocketed company that could boost the firm and help scale it to new heights. No one says MSOs are not OK Traditionally, law firms have operated as partnerships among attorneys, where equity partners own shares in the firm and help manage it. That's partly because of ethics rules designed to maintain attorney independence, such as ABA Model Rule 5.4(d), which largely prevents nonlawyers from owning law firms or from having the right to control the professional judgment of a lawyer. The ABA's rules have made law practices distinct from many other white-collar professions, like finance or consulting, which may have robust ethical rules and norms but don't impose such stringent limits on ownership. There are plenty of publicly traded banks and consulting firms, but no publicly traded law firms. As a workaround, the law firms can set themselves up as two corporate entities, Pera said. One is the law firm itself, composed exclusively of lawyers and owned only by lawyers. The second is the service organization, which can be owned by anyone and acts as a vendor for the law firm. It is essentially the back office, taking care of all non-lawyer tasks, including marketing, accounting, human resources, real estate leases, and employing paralegals. The two corporate entities enter into a long-term contract. Under this MSO arrangement, non-lawyers can invest in the service corporation, though not the law firm itself. Presto! You have an ethically independent group of lawyers who are exclusively working with a company that can sell shares, Pera says. According to Pera, no state bars have issued ethics opinions that expressly bless the MSO model, but no court or regulator has found a problem with it, either. "The pieces fit well, and there's no regulatory approval required for a law firm to do it, just like there's no regulatory approval required for a law firm to take out a bank loan," Pera said. A spokesperson for the American Bar Association said its Center for Professional Responsibility doesn't have any ethics opinions on non-lawyers investing in MSOs. "Lawyers are not subject to the ABA Model Rules," the spokesperson said. "Instead, they are regulated by the state supreme courts in which they are licensed." Opportunities for both lawyers and investors Tom Lenfestey is the founder and CEO of The Law Market Exchange, a sort of Craigslist for law firms. He says private equity companies are typically interested in consumer-driven firms, like personal injury. Investors might be able to introduce new efficiencies into those firms and get a steady stream of revenue in a larger portfolio, said Lenfestey, who also advises on law firm mergers and acquisitions. Private equity companies might be warier of investing in Big Law firms, which typically service corporations and have fewer but bigger clients, he said. Lawyers could always jump ship and take clients with them, but consumer law firms tend to do steadier business, he said. "Personal injury is brand-marketed — it's the billboards, it's the TV, it's the digital marketing," Lenfestey told Business Insider. "It's not attorney relationship-based." Because law firms aren't required to disclose their use of service organizations, it's difficult to know how widespread the practice is. Both Pera and Lenfestey declined to list the firms they've worked with using the structure, citing confidentiality obligations to their clients, but said it's becoming more common. Pera said he knows of one firm that used the structure as far back as 2006. In more recent years, more law firms and investors have become interested in using MSOs, Pera and Lenfestey said. "There are many more that are in process right now, and some of them are quite large," Pera said. "There's a fairly large insurance defense firm in this country that's looking at doing this. There's a fairly large AmLaw-ranked law firm that's looking at this. So there's a non-trivial number of these that are going on." Lawyers who have built up their practices, and who want to cash out, can do so by effectively selling part of their firm to someone else to manage. They can also help firms scale. Selling shares of an MSO could help finance lead generation or advertising. Catalex Network, which launched earlier this year, is using the MSO model to invest in law firms with a longer time horizon. While a private equity firm might want to stick with a law firm for a few years before selling its stake, Catalex Network says it aims to form long-term partnerships with law firms by helping them establish MSOs, buying substantial stakes in them, combining their back-offices, and giving the firms the resources to compete with Big Law. Catalex Network offers bread-and-butter services like IT, payroll, compliance management, and accounting. But also services that are more specific to the legal industry, like recruiting and sophisticated enterprise software that would be cost-prohibitive for smaller firms. "I've seen kind of what big law resources are and I've seen what small law resources are," said Jeffrey Goldenhersh, a Catalex Network founding partner, who previously worked at the Big Law firm Skadden Arps before moving to a boutique firm. For Catalex Network, the MSO structure offers a way for the company to grow with law firms. The American Bar Association's rules meant to preserve attorney independence, such as limits on fee-sharing with non-lawyers, are a non-issue. And while Catalex Network handles the back office, the lawyers can do less managing and more lawyering, Goldenhersh says. "There's a real consolidation going on at the top end of the legal market and some of these smaller, midsize, boutique-type firms are getting a little bit left behind," Jesse Hamilton, another Catalex founding partner, told BI. "So we're trying to help them catch up and be able to step into the ring with some of the larger firms that have consolidated, have the best technology, the best AI, the best back office staff, and have them be able to compete and stay relevant in the industry."

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store